Seen on Facebook:-Just wondered what to make of this recent scenario. Service user on standard licence, fails 3 appointments over a 1 month period. Marked as unacceptable as they were unacceptable. No recall as I phoned him (as we have to do now) and he answered so 'still in contact'. Email from 'Enforcement Team' stating that as we are not recalling - I need to make one of the absences acceptable. I've raised at SPO level that I am not happy to do this as none of them were justifiable absences - but have been told this HAS to be done, as otherwise the 'enforcement procedure' won't work. I've been told I can put in the contact that it is not actually acceptable - but it needs to be marked as acceptable. (I've no issue with the SPO I believe they are as frustrated as I am). But who actually has the time to read all the contacts to see why an absence is accepted - and if there are future absences the full picture of compliance is skewed - but for my memory! Am I being unreasonable to feel uncomfortable with this? Is this across the board? (I am CRC).
I don't think CRCs are paid if the supervision period isn't completed successfully. Which would explain the reluctance to breach/recall people...... Or am I cynical??
I don't even object to not having the recall (though you may be right). I just can't see why these cant 'lie on file' in case they are needed in future. They always used to ...!
Probably to do with a target somewhere behind the scenes.
I'm recording in delius like a mad woman because when the proverbial hits the fan I want it documented that I was following orders against my better judgement
My feelings are the same as you! I think we have to use the Acceptable Absence - Professional Judgement....? Feels like cooking the books.
Yep that's the one I used. I think
I would be happier if either we had a uniform 3 UA's and you're recalled approach - which is what the enforcement process is seeking - or whoever refused the recall makes them acceptable!! Just not in my name!
The whole enforcement process gives me a headache!! I feel as though I'm constantly checking for breach summons issued and breach listings dates. Just leaving it to someone else doesn't sit comfortably with me.
Sounds like something worth whistleblowing...
Very true. No one gives a shit.
As far as I can tell, CRC companies are refusing to let Responsible Officers breach people. A breach, of itself, is a minor loss of apparent success but, since the breaches are prosecuted by the NPS side, they run the risk of being revoked and resentenced which is a flat out failure. This loses them a lot of money and that is now the most important factor in every case. This is leading to the clientele realising that compliance no longer matters. This is going to get much worse.
Will stay like this till the SFO. Get told in writing every time, print 'em and keep 'em.
There's been SFOs but they're hush hush!
This is totally unacceptable and if he goes out and commits murder or something as serious and it goes for a review guess who's head is on the block.
Which is WHY you get it in writing. If they have any sense then the SPO will have the direction in writing as well.
I agree have a good paper trail and let your SPO know that you are doing it and WHY.
Jeez...I said at the start (as many did) that TR would result in SFOs. It will happen I have no doubt. In the meantime, cover your arse!
I think it's an ndelius issue that it has to be marked acceptable because if it's not it would trigger other ndelius things. Given the decision I think you'll have no choice but to mark acceptable but I would note your comments/views and note where the decision had come from. I would also make a separate entry marked case decision or case discussion abc nite your views so if audited there is a record or if an SFO it's there. Now I anticipate potential views on this but I would be tempted to do a home visit when you can, more for you and the case management. All you can do is protect yourself as a worker you can't effect the decisions higher up and on there head that is. Good luck your not alone.
If u feel ur right u should stick to ur guns.
I would probably put in the note "this absence has been changed to acceptable to meet new enforcement process requirements although it remains an unacceptable absence". It's your name going on the entry frown emoticon ridiculous!
Thank you all. The SPO's are generally on top of it and record on Delius the decision making around not recalling. For the ones I have had to make acceptable I have literally outlined that I have been 'instructed' to make it acceptable but will get this in writing from now on and copy emails in. I've also had some thoughts around the enforcement policy which I will be looking into if I'm in the same situation again. Thankyou all for your support. x
I'm CRC and no you don't have to make one acceptable if it's not, that's cooking the books. Even before TR you would ring an offender to find out why they didn't attend and if they answered and had a decent excuse you'd make a defensible decision re recall. The absences should stay as they are, but your contact (SPO consultation/management oversight) would explain your reason for not recalling.
On second thoughts!! If someone missed three appointments that you thought were unacceptable but after speaking to him you decided not to recall. Doesn't that mean you accepted his reasons for at least one of those absences and therefore it is no longer unacceptable? Otherwise you would be recalling...
Helpful discussion..... thank you.
I'd point blank refuse.....what the hell is happening here. This sickens me tbh. Absences are either acceptable or not....massaging the figures shouldn't be happening. Senior staff shouldn't be asking us to do this. I think bottom line here is that of a manager wants it on they can put it on.
Think of an SFO......if you're noting you don't accept the reasons for an absence why the bloody hell are they asking you to mark it as acceptable.
Exactly my concerns. It's crazy. I wouldn't mind if it wasn't generally so tough to get a recall!!
No, you're not being unreasonable, just fed up, as are most of us, with being compelled to doctor enforcement records; in other words, lie at the behest of target/cost driven management. Being uncomfortable means that you retain your integrity...
Some very good advice has been given but we still shouldn't be put in this position.
.........why did you ring him?? Seems pretty clean cut to me....3 failed appts = Breach x But there again, what the f*** do I know?
You ring because there is a question on the form that asks what you did to gain compliance
First question asked is - 'have you tried to make contact?' I remember the days when it was their responsibility to attend and not ours to remind them repeatedly. A world away from now!!
Actually l often called to remind. My Dr sends me a text every appt now and that is not their job. Chaotic people need support.
Are you in a union? If so, ask you local rep to raise this issue at JNCC. Get the response minuted - it's then the organisation's formal instruction and this can be referred to when it all goes t**s up!
Thank you. I will do, especially as it doesn't seem to be a more widespread issue.
Question. .. Who makes up the enforcement team?
In our area it is a team of admins. To be fair to them they are just following protocol as you cannot have more than 3 UA's on an event without enforcement action.
Sounds like everyone does things differently. You can make a decision not to enforce an order with multiple absences without falsifying it (crazy to even suggest it)as long as your decision is defensible. If the proverbial hit the fan and you can stand by your decision then so be it. If you are made to record something you are not comfortable with make sure you say that you were instructed and by whom. I'm not sure an instruction from an admin enforcement team would hold much weight of you were answering questions in an SFO interview though. .. just a thought.....
Because in our CRC, enforcement action is an automated process. A 2nd absence (or 3rd licence) triggers an alert on a report that is looked at daily by the enforcement team. If enforcement action isn't taken at that time (due to whatever reason/professional judgement) and the individual fails again (making it 3rd or 4th, etc,) this is not sent through to the report as the system thinks they have already been breached (if this makes sense?!).
Our enforcement team is just following instructions as per the process dictated to them, unfortunately. X
I like the idea of the alert as sometimes it's missed, but these new instructions seem to be taking away your professional judgement...
It has it's positives although waiting for the system to pick up what I am ultimately the 'Responsible Officer' for does not sit comfortably with me, at all.
Now I can see how the term Responsible Officer takes away your role as manager...!! Watering down of the role. ..
I checked the process with an SPO before accepting the absences in the case in question. What I have learnt from this is if I don't want to be in the same boat again - I need to build a stronger case for recall I suppose it's less of a problem with Orders as we can (at the moment) make the call to breach whereas recalls have to be authorised.
It's funny because at our end we have to build a strong case NOT to recall.
You have to laugh or you'd cry!!
True!! Makes sense why we couldn't hold the service together!! x
The end of professionalism.